[markjo]

Radiation isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb...

In context of bombs, then yes, radiation is most certainly evidence of a nuclear bomb.  That is unless you can show that TNT or other conventional bombs produce radiation similar to that expected from nuclear bombs.

[gerard1977]

The World that we originally come from did have nuclear bombs. The World that we are in now, is only a simulation aka a projection of history as we see it happen. So from this point of view in this World nuclear bombs actually do not exist, but what we are seeing has happened for real but is now a projection. You might think this is nonsense, but in the book Alien Assessment of nuclear armed Earth you can find a method to check for yourself that you actually are a in simulation. You can do it within 10 min.

https://man-kindness.blogspot.com/2023/01/Alien-assessmant-nuclear-armed-Earth-disarm.html

[BillO]

For example: "The vast majority of the people that died in both of those incidents died due to radiation effects". Marie Curie died of "radiation effects", did someone nuke her, Bill?

No.  She exposed herself to it by carrying radium around in her pockets.

Was Chernobyl a nuclear bomb all along? The answer is no, it wasn't.

Right.  And the result was substantially different than what you get when a bomb is detonated.  In the Chernobyl incident radio active substances like cesium 137 and iodine 131 were released. 

Radiation isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb, but you already know that, so why are you bringing it up when I've already pointed it out in the thread?

Because you are wrong.  There are different types and profiles of radiation release.  Atomic/nuclear bombs are unique in the extreme.  No other process/event produces a radiation release profile like a nuclear bomb.  Nothing.

Perhaps you should read the thread before responding again.

I did.  Perhaps you should learn something about nuclear physics.

Go back and read your OP.   "It's Fake!" is all it says.  No evidence whatsoever.  Typical flat earth "theory" there.

[Rushy]

In context of bombs, then yes, radiation is most certainly evidence of a nuclear bomb.  That is unless you can show that TNT or other conventional bombs produce radiation similar to that expected from nuclear bombs.

So, in the world of markjo, dirty bombs don't exist?

No.  She exposed herself to it by carrying radium around in her pockets.

Gee, so radiation can come from places other than nukes. Fascinating.

Right.  And the result was substantially different than what you get when a bomb is detonated.  In the Chernobyl incident radio active substances like cesium 137 and iodine 131 were released. 

Right, because actual nuclear accidents involving uranium and plutonium produce different products than what was detected at supposed "nuclear bomb" sites. Now we're getting somewhere.

Because you are wrong.  There are different types and profiles of radiation release.  Atomic/nuclear bombs are unique in the extreme.  No other process/event produces a radiation release profile like a nuclear bomb.  Nothing.

And this is where you encounter the propaganda. You see, you haven't verified that a nuclear bomb actually produced any of the recorded substances. All you can do is take the government's records at face value. You can go to Chernobyl (well, now is a bad time) and actually verify what happened (as many documentaries have done!).

All you know is that someone exploded something and now there is radiation. That isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb and you know it.

Go back and read your OP.   "It's Fake!" is all it says.  No evidence whatsoever.  Typical flat earth "theory" there.

You're right Bill, I can't prove it doesn't exist, but the idea that I need to do so is your logical fault, not my own. I can't prove a variety of nonsense statements, such as whether or not Santa and the tooth fairy exist. However, I don't think this really helps your case. Backing you all the way up to "you can't prove me wrong" shows how little you have to stand on in the first place.

[BillO]

All you know is that someone exploded something and now there is radiation. That isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb and you know it.

We know more than that.  We know the extent and profile of the radiation released.  Sure, there were radioactive substances released as a result of the nuclear detonations, but not much.  Compared to the amount of fissionable material involved in the Chernobyl meltdown there is a relatively small amount in an atomic bomb.  A bomb only requires about 10lbs.  A small fraction of what was available in the reactor.  The difference is the huge amount of and type of radiation released and in a very short period of time.  Don't believe the "propaganda" as you call it.  Do some study into the physics.

As to "propaganda", what are the odds that Japan (and the rest of the enemies of the US) would support the US's supposed propaganda about nuclear bombs after they just demolished two major Japanese cities?  Just a bit of a stretch.  But I digress.  It's not an argument, just a little comic relief

Go back and read your OP.   "It's Fake!" is all it says.  No evidence whatsoever.  Typical flat earth "theory" there.

You're right Bill, I can't prove it doesn't exist, but the idea that I need to do so is your logical fault, not my own. I can't prove a variety of nonsense statements, such as whether or not Santa and the tooth fairy exist. However, I don't think this really helps your case. Backing you all the way up to "you can't prove me wrong" shows how little you have to stand on in the first place.

Well, to be honest, if that is what I was basing my argument on, you would have me.  However, it's not.  I am basing it on the completely different fingerprint a nuclear detonation leaves when compared to any other release of nuclear radiation.  As I think I stated before, there is nothing like it.  Not even remotely.  You can come by months or even years later and easily tell whether there was a bomb, a reactor meltdown or a lady scientist walking around with radium in her pockets.

Anyway Rushy.  I'll give you the last word.  I'm not going to change your mind on this.  Only you can do that, and it would not be that hard for you to delve into the science behind it.

[AATW]

You're right Bill, I can't prove it doesn't exist, but the idea that I need to do so is your logical fault, not my own.

And your logical error is the classic conspiracy theorist tactic of operating in the sceptical context.  You do this with all the evidence which indicates that atomic weapons are a thing, that they've been used twice in anger in living memory and that there have been loads of atomic tests since, all of which have radioactive signatures you wouldn't find in conventional bombs. Then there's the fact that the Hiroshima bomb was the equivalent of 16,000 tons of TNT, not quite sure how the Enola Gay could have transported that. None of the evidence is good enough for you. You dismiss it all.

But you do this selectively.  The stuff you want to believe - that Hiroshima was "just firebombing", you claim things like that without providing any evidence. And then you do a load of wild speculation that if nuclear weapons were a thing then <bad things> would happen. But that is just you speculating, it's not evidence of anything.

So no, you can't prove nuclear weapons don't exist any more than anyone can prove they do - not to the standard you demand. But some evidence for your claims would be nice.

You can use this tactic to believe - or disbelieve - anything you like.

"Kangaroos don't exist."
"Here's a photo of one."
"That's fake."
"OK, here's a video of one"
"CGI"
"I've been to Australia and seen some"
"You're mistaken or lying"
"OK, now we're at the zoo. Look, there's a kangaroo".
"Pah, that's just an animatronic fake".

And so on. You can do this about anything. If you have any good evidence for any of your claims then present it, otherwise it's just you making wild claims to back up your narrative.

[markjo]

In context of bombs, then yes, radiation is most certainly evidence of a nuclear bomb.  That is unless you can show that TNT or other conventional bombs produce radiation similar to that expected from nuclear bombs.

So, in the world of markjo, dirty bombs don't exist?

Of course dirty bombs could exist, although I have not heard of any reports of a dirty bomb being used.  Have you?  Have you compared the radiation from a dirty bomb to the radiation found at a nuclear bomb explosion?

[Dual1ty]

For example: "The vast majority of the people that died in both of those incidents died due to radiation effects". Marie Curie died of "radiation effects", did someone nuke her, Bill?

No.  She exposed herself to it by carrying radium around in her pockets.

That's what I was told in school too, but:

Curie visited Poland for the last time in early 1934. A few months later, on 4 July 1934, she died aged 66 at the Sancellemoz sanatorium in Passy, Haute-Savoie, from aplastic anemia believed to have been contracted from her long-term exposure to radiation, causing damage to her bone marrow.

The damaging effects of ionising radiation were not known at the time of her work, which had been carried out without the safety measures later developed. She had carried test tubes containing radioactive isotopes in her pocket, and she stored them in her desk drawer, remarking on the faint light that the substances gave off in the dark. Curie was also exposed to X-rays from unshielded equipment while serving as a radiologist in field hospitals during the war. In fact, when Curie's body was exhumed in 1995, the French Office de Protection contre les Rayonnements Ionisants (ORPI) "concluded that she could not have been exposed to lethal levels of radium while she was alive". They pointed out that radium poses a risk only if it is ingested, and speculated that her illness was more likely to have been due to her use of radiography during the First World War.

There's that magic word "believe" again.

[BillO]

There's that magic word "believe" again.

Nothing in there removes the fact that she carried radium around in her pockets and was exposed to it's radiation.

Aplastic anemia has quite a few known causes, one of them being exposure to the kind of radiation emitted by radium.  They can try to eliminate the other causes but without absolute knowledge of every minute of her life it would be difficult or impossible to be 100% sure that the cause was the radiation.  Even if you did have intimate knowledge of every minute of her life you could not discount the possibility that she acquired the condition from a yet unknown cause.  I assume the consensus was that it was the most likely cause, hence the use of the word "believe".

Also, the choice to use that word is that of the author of that piece and may not have been the word used by the person/people making the determination of cause.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

The only possible way for a Zetetic to know that a nuclear weapon actally exists is for them to experience one personally.

Of course, then it would be too late. They would only have a split second of truth and awareness before they turned into vapor.

[AATW]

The only possible way for a Zetetic to know that a nuclear weapon actally exists is for them to experience one personally.

Of course, then it would be too late. They would only have a split second of truth and awareness before they turned into vapor.

That wouldn't really cut it. Early in this thread Rushy wasn't denying the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened.
He just said it was TNT or firebombing.

[Dual1ty]

There's that magic word "believe" again.

Nothing in there removes the fact that she carried radium around in her pockets and was exposed to it's radiation.

Aplastic anemia has quite a few known causes, one of them being exposure to the kind of radiation emitted by radium.  They can try to eliminate the other causes but without absolute knowledge of every minute of her life it would be difficult or impossible to be 100% sure that the cause was the radiation.  Even if you did have intimate knowledge of every minute of her life you could not discount the possibility that she acquired the condition from a yet unknown cause.  I assume the consensus was that it was the most likely cause, hence the use of the word "believe".

Also, the choice to use that word is that of the author of that piece and may not have been the word used by the person/people making the determination of cause.

Next time, try reading what I post before replying.

[BillO]

Next time, try reading what I post before replying.

I did.  My response was a discussion of what you posted and in particular your pointing out the "believe" in the quote you provided.

I'm not sure why you are being so defensive.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

I've been thinking of ways to prove to a Zetetic that nuclear bombs do exist. We could personally walk them through the physics of the bomb and the mechanics of making a nuclear bomb but they would have no proof it actually works.

So, we walk them through the physics of a nuclear bomb, walk them through the mechanics of building a nuclear bomb and set them a distance from ground zero of a nuclear bomb equipped with all the detection equipment they request. Perhaps in the split second before they are incinerated, they will detect some radioactive signature unique to a nuclear reaction from a nuclear bomb that would convince them that nuclear bombs do exist. Is there any evidence they could possibly gather right up until the last split second before they are vaporized that nuclear weapons do exist?

Even in retrospect, these people would be wandering around the afterlife believing they were blown up by crates of TNT and their whole experience of life was a liberal hoax run by the leftist, pedophile cabal.

[Rushy]

I've been thinking of ways to prove to a Zetetic that nuclear bombs do exist. We could personally walk them through the physics of the bomb and the mechanics of making a nuclear bomb but they would have no proof it actually works.

I am a not a Zetetic and I already provided a post that states exactly what level of evidence I want to see. Unsurprisingly, no one is able to provide it, because it does not exist. Nuclear bombs do not exist. They are not real. They have never been real.

[Pete Svarrior]

I've been thinking of ways to prove to a Zetetic that nuclear bombs do exist.

Why? That's a problem statement that's not even coherent to begin with.

You don't know what Zeteticism is, do you?

[BillO]

I already provided a post that states exactly what level of evidence I want to see.

I can verify that:

I would need to see, either in person or an adequate video, actually showing the internals of the device, showing that it's obviously not faked using a large amount of conventional explosive, and then actually detonated. The video of course would need to be devoid of jumpcut editing where they go "here see this is totally it, this is totally what explodes!" and then it suddenly jumps to an explosion as if that's the device that was used.

Of course if one was provided it would not be accepted.  Either the "CGI!!!" cry would resound or Rushy would be busy moving the goal posts.

It is not possible to convince a conspiracy theorist their conspiracies are wrong.  This should be obvious.  Since their theories and their thinking are not based on established fact (IOW the lies we're being told) then established fact cannot shake them.  More likely you will be accused of being part of the conspiracy and only serve to make it more concrete in their minds.

[Rushy]

Of course if one was provided it would not be accepted.  Either the "CGI!!!" cry would resound or Rushy would be busy moving the goal posts.

It is not possible to convince a conspiracy theorist their conspiracies are wrong.  This should be obvious.  Since their theories and their thinking are not based on established fact (IOW the lies we're being told) then established fact cannot shake them.  More likely you will be accused of being part of the conspiracy and only serve to make it more concrete in their minds.

I like how, rather than provide the evidence I ask for, you'd prefer to presuppose it will be rejected. This is, of course, because you don't have it, and you're acting defensive about it and rationalizing it as "you wouldn't think it's true anyway!!!"

The reason why you and others like you get so defensive on this subject is because you must somehow believe that "x is real" without having any evidence for it whatsoever. Now, this generally isn't a problem for some people (such as religious individuals) as they accept that their beliefs are fundamentally without evidence and require faith. However, for many nuke cultists, they think of themselves as rational and science-based individuals. The inherent lack of rationality in believing nukes to be real bothers them immensely, but they bury such thoughts.

Nuclear bombs are "baby's first Project Blue Beam". A falsehood meant to suppress ignorant enemies into submission.

[markjo]

I like how, rather than provide the evidence I ask for, you'd prefer to presuppose it will be rejected. This is, of course, because you don't have it, and you're acting defensive about it and rationalizing it as "you wouldn't think it's true anyway!!!"

And I like how you ask for evidence that you know full well is impossible to provide and then get all smug when people do try to provide what evidence is possible to provide.

[AATW]

I like how, rather than provide the evidence I ask for, you'd prefer to presuppose it will be rejected.

The evidence you ask for is weirdly specific and doesn't even make sense.
You want to see the "internals of the device". What would that tell you? I wouldn't know what the internals of a nuclear weapon should look like. They could show me anything, how would you or I know that's real?
And then you want to see it detonated. OK. You understand that these blasts are very powerful so that would need to be from some distance away. The person showing the "internals of the device" and the camera would need to get that distance away and from that distance how could you know it's really the device you just saw the internals of that exploded?

you must somehow believe that "x is real" without having any evidence for it whatsoever.

This continues to be incorrect no matter how many times you say it. You have been shown a lot of evidence in this thread. You can reject it all of course and call it inadequate, as is your right, but to say we don't have "any evidence" is simply incorrect.

I actually disagree that religious beliefs are not based at all on evidence. I mean, let's say there was no historic evidence that Jesus even existed. Let's say the Gospels talk about people and places which just never existed. Let's say that there were no known versions of the Gospels before 1900. Then I'd be taking a pretty big leap of faith believing any of the New Testamant stories. But none of that is true. There is extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus existing, the people mentioned are known to have existed and many of the places mentioned still exist. There are copies of fragments of Gospels going back to reasonably close to Jesus' time. So while sure, I've had to take somewhat of a leap of faith it's not a completely blind leap with no evidence to back it up. Many of our beliefs are evidence based, you can't verify everything first hand.

The inherent lack of rationality in believing nukes to be real bothers them immensely, but they bury such thoughts.

I'd suggest it's a lack of rationality to disbelieve all the people who have witnessed at first hand nuclear explosions, dismiss the explosions as caused by conventional explosions - something you have provided no evidence for - and to ignore the radiation signatures of the bombs. As I've said multiple times, your entire argument is one of incredulity.